The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal and wider interpretation of the Railways Act to advance its object, emphasizing the principle of strict liability and the requirement for the railway administration to pay compensation irrespective of fault or negligence.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order of dismissal of Claim Application No. OA/(IIu)/MCC/1151 of 2011 passed on 31st January, 2018 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai.

2. Facts in brief are as follows;

On 2nd May, 2011, one Jagdish Sadashiv Kotiyan (for short 'deceased') a labourer aged about 27 years was travelling by a local train from Mankhurd to Sewri on the strength of a second class ticket bearing No. C-65423677. When the train reached near Govandi station, he accidentally fell down from the running train and was cut into two pieces from the waist and died on the spot leaving behind his father Sadashiv Kotiyan, the appellant herein.

3. A claim application was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, seeking compensation. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence of the appellant on affidavit and having considered the record of the respondent arrived at a conclusion that the presence of the deceased in the railway premises was unauthorized and consequently, he was knocked down by an unknown train while crossing railway track, meaning thereby, the Tribunal held that it was the negligence of the deceased which resulted into his death. As the said act was an offence, it does not cover within the term "untoward incident" as defined in Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short 'Railway's Act").

4. Aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. I heard Mr. More, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pandian, learned Counsel for the respondent.

6. In short, it is contended by Mr. More that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in ignoring a valid ticket held by the deceased while travelling in a local train on the date of the incident. It was indeed a case of felling down from a running local train and, therefore, according to Mr. More, the Tribunal ought to have held that it was an accidental death of the deceased and it was the duty of the respondent to prove that it was not an untoward incident as per section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act. It is contended that the Motorman who has given evidence was not an eye witness of the accident.

7. According to Mr. More, had it been an offence under section 147 of the Railways Act and had there been sufficient material on record then Investigating Officer ought to have registered an F.I.R but in the absence of an F.I.R, it can be said to be an accidental death of the deceased. The respondent has not proved the exceptions (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Railways Act to deny it's liability to compensate the appellant on account of death of the deceased in railway accident.

8. Finally, it is contended that the learned Tribunal is not an expert to opine as to how the injuries could have been sustained as erroneously observed in the impugned judgment.

9. Mr. More, therefore, strongly contended to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order.

10. Mr. Pandian, the standing Counsel for the respondent, however, has supported the impugned judgment by contending that the appellant Sadashiv Kotiyan-A.W.1, father of the deceased was not an eye witness to the incident. According to Mr. Pandian, the Tribunal has rightly believed the photostat copies of the inquest panchanama, postmortem report, death certificate of the deceased as well as the D.R.M's report which is marked as "R colly" to reach to a conclusion that the deceased died due to his own criminal act. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

11. Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the appellant, in sum and substance, indicates that the deceased was a bachelor who was travelling from Mankhurd to Sewri by a local train on 2nd May, 2011 on the strength of a valid second class railway ticket bearing No. C-65423677. Admittedly, the said ticket was recovered while drawing an inquest panchanama by the respondent.

12. On the other hand, Rajesh Kumar Parmeshwar Singh - R.W.1 working as a Motorman of the Centra